Scottish Coal Industry Task Force
The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on the Scottish coal industry task force. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions during it. I note that not all the members who indicated that they wished to participate in the question session are in the chamber, and express disappointment at that.
15:41
Presiding Officer, I understand that copies of the statement should have been made available to you very recently. I would have far preferred that far more notice had been given; I apologise for that. I felt that it was correct to say that to you and to members to whom I have not been able to provide a copy of the statement because of other matters.
Over the past year, my officials and I have had extensive engagement with the opencast mining sector in Scotland. The sector employs 3,000 people directly and 4,500 people indirectly, contributes £450 million to the Scottish economy, and provides well-remunerated jobs—average wages are around £42,000 a year. It is vital to the economies of Ayrshire, Lanarkshire, Dumfries and Galloway and Fife and other parts of Scotland. It is part of the social fabric of Scotland, and mining communities are proud, strong and resilient.
Since around last autumn, it became increasingly clear that the sector faced very difficult financial challenges as a result of the continuing low world coal prices. As members will be aware, the Scottish Resources Group called in the liquidators on 19 April 2013. That led to an announcement of 604 job losses on that day.
I set up a task force to look at the issues that the coal sector faces. I chair the Scottish opencast coal industry task force, and I am very pleased to have had cross-party MSP and MP representation as part of the group. The task force is equally well represented, with, as members, stakeholders that include trade union officials, the local authorities most affected, landowners and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and there is representation from the United Kingdom Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Coal Authority and the Scotland Office. The task force met most recently on Monday 20 May, in Cumnock in Ayrshire. That area is no stranger to the devastating effects that the loss of work in the coal industry can bring to communities.
The task force’s remit covers the immediate employment challenges, and the main focus is on securing the re-employment of as many of the SRG workforce as possible. The task force is also to consider the restoration of opencast sites and the issues that threaten the longer-term viability of the coal sector as a whole.
Through our partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—initiative, we took immediate action to support employees who had been made redundant. We held four redundancy support events—on Tuesday 30 April in Lanarkshire, 1 May in Ayrshire and Alloa, and 2 May in Fife. On 17 May, we invited all 604 redundant employees to make an appointment with a PACE adviser to identify their training needs or other opportunities to assist them if they wished to remain in the mining sector or to retrain to work in another sector.
An important part of the reskilling efforts is the provision of driver training for large plant machinery. The certification of that training and its transferability to other sectors, such as the construction sector, is a key enabler in job market mobility for coal sector employees. The possibility of using some of the current SRG sites for that training is being explored as an option. To aid that process, additional funds of over £1 million have been made available through the Scottish Government’s employability fund, which is administered by Skills Development Scotland. It was agreed on Monday that a short-life working group to address the issue of training and certification ticketing be set up, and that group will meet shortly.
I am pleased to update members that Hargreaves plc, a prospective buyer of the former SRG company, has been selected by KPMG, the liquidators, as preferred bidder for the former SRG business. Discussions between KPMG and Hargreaves are on-going, so I stress that it is not a signed or sealed deal as yet. However, the interest shown by Hargreaves is encouraging and it is a serious bid. Hargreaves was invited to, and attended, the most recent task force meeting. It was very encouraging to hear from Hargreaves that its plans for the former SRG business include the intention to re-employ up to 300 people in Scotland in the first six months, which estimate may rise to around 500 people in the first 12 months of the new operation. More details of the negotiation between Hargreaves and KPMG may be expected in the coming weeks as talks progress. However, councils were encouraged to open dialogue with Hargreaves at the earliest opportunity regarding sites located in the relevant council areas, and that is under way.
Members may be aware that Hargreaves is currently finalising the purchase of ATH Resources plc, another coal operator and major employer in the Scottish opencast coal sector. Hargreaves’s intervention in ATH has managed to maintain 230 jobs or thereabouts in Scotland by keeping ATH operating throughout a very difficult period for that company. We welcome that intervention by Hargreaves.
East Ayrshire Council is one of the largest affected authorities, with the loss of 350 jobs in the area, so the council has set up a local task force to run in tandem with the national task force. Douglas Reid, council leader, and Fiona Lees, the chief executive, provided an update to the task force on the East Ayrshire Council local task force.
The issue of state aid has been discussed at length within the task force, and although it is clear that state aid support for the coal industry is extremely restrictive, we are continuing to explore fully whether any avenues are open to us. That work is being done jointly by the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government through DECC.
The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has provided an update to the task force on its work. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust was established to provide support to Scotland’s former coal mining communities. From 2011 to 2014, the CRT will have received £2.5 million in grants from the Scottish Government to carry out its activities in former coalfield communities. I am pleased to say that the CRT is considering what more it can do and what role it can play going forward.
By far the biggest threat facing the future of the opencast coal industry in Scotland is the proposed increase in track access charges for coal freight. The Office of Rail Regulation proposal has been out to consultation since March last year and is of grave concern as a result of the distance-travelled element of the charge. The proposed charge will be levied on a per-kilometre-travelled basis, which will mean that operators in Scotland, who have the furthest distance to travel to the main markets in the south of England, will be disproportionately affected, drastically undermining the competitiveness of the Scottish coal sector. Scottish operators and Scottish ministers, including me and Mr Brown, who is with me in the chamber, have responded to the consultation strongly, stating the case that the charges have the potential to destroy the Scottish opencast coal sector.
The Scottish Government continues to respect the statutory independence of the ORR in this matter, but it is vital that in reaching a decision on a charging regime it ensures that the wider impacts of the charges on the Scottish coal industry are fully considered. That was clear in the formal guidance that my colleague Mr Brown issued to the ORR last summer and in the representations that were made during our most recent discussions. The ORR attended the task force meeting on Monday, and I thank it for its attendance at what was clearly a very difficult forum for it but one in which it received very direct feedback from the industry. The ORR determination will be available on 12 June this year. At that point, the ORR will take further comments, with the final documentation expected later this year.
The restoration of opencast coal sites is a subject of great importance to the task force. Members might be aware that my officials and I have been working closely with key stakeholders over the past six months to address the issues that the Scottish coal industry faces. We share the concerns that local communities have expressed about the responsible restoration of opencast coal sites. I am therefore pleased to make members aware of the newly created Scottish Mines Restoration Trust, which will facilitate the restoration of old opencast coal mines across Scotland. Although the task force’s main concern is to retain as many of the existing coal jobs as possible, I ask that members note that the restoration process itself will potentially, over time, create hundreds of jobs across the country, as well as restoring the local environment.
The SMRT will be independent of the Scottish Government and its board will be made up of representatives of local authorities and other stakeholders. The SMRT will not directly fund restoration; it is right that coal operators will still be responsible for the restoration of their respective opencast sites. However, such tasks are often complex, and the trust will work with coal operators, local councils, landowners, communities and other bodies to facilitate the responsible and appropriate restoration of opencast sites.
I am sure that all members agree that community engagement is a critical factor in the creation and deployment of restoration plans for opencast sites. I assure members that community participation and engagement will be a prerequisite of SMRT involvement in the facilitation of restoration schemes.
Task force members are working well together. We are doing all that we can do to ensure continued employment in the coal industry in Scotland, and we are paying particular attention to the areas that are most affected by the recent redundancies. We are assessing the threats and issues that affect the long-term viability of the coal sector—principally, the ORR charging proposals—and we are working hard to ensure that the responsible and appropriate restoration of opencast sites in Scotland takes place.
I thank all members who have taken part in the various pieces of work that I described, principally the task force, and all members who will speak in response to my statement. These have been trying times for the Scottish opencast coal sector and I pay tribute to the efforts that have been made by all parties, working together, to find the best way forward. I will be happy to answer members’ questions.
I remind members that on Tuesday I had to advise members that business in the chamber usually takes place on a follow-on basis, so no times are set in stone for the start and end of business. Members who turn up late for a statement cannot expect to be called to ask questions if they have not heard the statement. However, members who were late on this occasion were only a few minutes late, so I am minded to call them. If they press their request-to-speak buttons, along with other members who want to be called, their request will be given consideration.
I apologise for misunderstanding the timing of the start of the statement.
I welcome the update from the minister and thank him for the advance copy of his statement. Given that more than 600 jobs are directly affected by the collapse of SRG, our first concern must be for those individuals, and for their families and others who are indirectly suffering as a result of the job losses. Will the minister assure members that maintaining the maximum number of jobs will be at the forefront of his efforts and those of Scottish Government agencies?
In relation to those efforts, I am led to believe that support for training for people who are affected might be limited to £200 per person. Is that the case and, if so, is such a sum sufficient to enable people to access the courses and reskilling opportunities that they might require?
From an answer that Margaret Burgess gave to Neil Findlay, I understand that the support that the Government is offering does not include any new money. Will the minister confirm that that is the case?
I understand that the liquidator, KPMG, is applying to the Court of Session to divest itself of the responsibility for the clean-up or restoration of sites that are rejected by a potential buyer. Which authority will end up with the responsibility for such mines, should approval be granted?
The minister mentioned the Scottish Government’s grant to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. The grant had been running at more than £1.5 million for each of the past eight years, at least. The Scottish Government has reduced that funding to just over £500,000 this year and next. Given the impact that that is bound to have on already deprived and hard-hit communities, will the minister reconsider his support for the excellent work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust?
I will try to answer the questions raised. Of course I can confirm that my absolute concern is to ensure that, of the people who are presently redundant, as many as is practically possible will have the offer of re-engagement. I have made that abundantly clear at both the task force meetings that I have chaired thus far. That is a matter of resolute determination on my part and, I believe, on the part of all members of the task force and all parties represented therein that have constituency interests.
On training, I do not believe that there is a threshold or ceiling of £200 per person, but I will check that and write to the member on that specific issue. A substantial sum has been allocated to training; that money has been allocated in light of the gravity of the situation that we face.
Perhaps I can suggest to members that at present the problem is not really how much money might be available per person. The main challenge is to find a way to enable the assessment to be conducted. The assessment is necessary in some cases for drivers to receive ticketing. The matter is complex; it is one on which the National Union of Mineworkers has been actively working for a long period. That is precisely why we agreed at the task force meeting that was held in Cumnock on Monday this week that a sub-group will be set up that will involve all related parties, including Hargreaves, Kier Construction, the NUM and Professor Russel Griggs—who has an extraordinarily prominent role in all these matters—as well as other relevant people.
The objective is to find a practical way forward. Let me reassure members that, as energy minister, I will ensure that money will not be a problem in sorting out those issues. The problems are practical and logistical, primarily. If people are to get training, we need a place for that training; that means a mine that is registered and licensed to operate safely. I will ensure that it will not be for the lack of money that we fail to solve the problems. There is a clear will to do so and I am grateful to be able to clarify that. The CRT plays a prominent role, working with communities from the bottom up, as it were, and it will continue to do that.
Finally, on the thorny issue of ownership, I believe that the Scottish Government is party to the legal proceedings to which Mr Macintosh referred. Therefore it may well be that they are sub judice to some extent and I would prefer—rather than inadvertently fall foul of parliamentary procedure—to write to the member to set out with clarity my response. I am not seeking to avoid his question, but I must respect the procedures that may apply, given that we have entered proceedings relatively recently and that it may be inappropriate or unhelpful for me to comment further on that matter. However, I undertake that every member will be informed, as soon as possible, of the precise position in relation to those matters, given that they are of legitimate public concern.
I thank the minister for his statement and for the advance notice. I thank him also for the invitation to be part of the Scottish coal industry task force. I was pleased to attend the first meeting some weeks ago. I am afraid that, due to other commitments, I could not attend the meeting that was held this Monday, but I am grateful to the minister for the updates about what is happening in that forum.
I welcome the interest that has been expressed today by Hargreaves in purchasing the former SRG business. That will provide some assurance to at least some of the former employees of SRG.
The minister will remember that at the first meeting of the task force he signed a letter that represented the very strongly held view in that meeting that any buyer should purchase the entirety of SRG’s business, including its liabilities, rather than just cherry pick particular sites. Is Hargreaves interested in purchasing the entire business, as was indicated at that meeting, or is it in the business of cherry picking? If the latter, what might then happen to the remaining parts of SRG that might not be profitable?
Murdo Fraser is correct in saying that, following the first meeting, I wrote to the liquidators to express the general view of the task force. At that time there had been no announcements by the liquidator as to any preferred bidder. That matter was not by any means clear, so at the request of the task force, and all the people there, including members from parties in this chamber, I indicated that the task force’s preference was twofold: first, that a well-capitalised company should come in to take over coal operations, and secondly, that cherry picking should be avoided. I do not think that it was ever suggested that there would be a solution that answered every problem in relation to coaled-out mines. The letter is a matter of record and I can pass Murdo Fraser a copy of it.
I believe, and I should state for the record, that it is clear that Hargreaves is a well-capitalised company. That is beyond dispute; information has been provided to that effect. Therefore, we welcome the intervention of Hargreaves in ATH, and that view should receive the full support of all members in this chamber. The welcome of the status of Hargreaves as preferred bidder for SRG seems to be entirely consistent with what the task force wants. At the meeting on Monday, which Murdo Fraser was unable to attend, the mood was to welcome the commitment that Hargreaves is making. That commitment extends to acknowledging its on-going responsibility for environmental matters—for restoring the mines that it will be working—as well as carrying out coaling operations.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and his work on the issue. I am a member of the task force, but I have not yet been able to attend its meetings, much to my regret.
I see no reference in the minister’s statement to a replacement for restoration bonds. I have been very concerned about proposals to introduce a kind of pay-as-you-extract scheme to replace the bonds, in which companies would pay a fee for the coal that they extract, which might not match the full cost of restoration. If a company collapses just before it extracts any coal, there might not be any funds left to restore the big hole that would have been ripped out of the landscape. Will the minister set out his thoughts on that matter and whether he has reached a conclusion?
Restoration is not a simple issue; it is a thorny one. It is an issue with considerable challenges, as all members will recognise.
Traditionally, restoration bonds have been used. They can come in many shapes and forms, as financial instruments. Their essential common element is that they provide an element of insurance cover to meet the costs of restoring the environment of a mine that has been coaled, in the same way that any insurance policy provides an amount of cover against specified events.
Problems have arisen in two respects. First, the level of cover may be insufficient to meet the total cost of restoration, and there may therefore be a shortfall. That will undoubtedly be the case in some instances. Secondly, it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain restoration bonds.
For both those reasons, we have been looking at the issue with a group since, I think, last October, before the task force was formed. We believe that we need to look at solutions for the future. For example, I understand that another company that operates coaling provides a parent company guarantee, which, because of the extensive and robust financial standing of that company, is accepted as sufficient cover.
Those are matters in which the judgment of financial experts obviously has a role to play. I inform Willie Rennie that the next meeting of the task force is due to take place on 1 July at Cumnock, courtesy of East Ayrshire Council once again. At the meeting that took place on Monday it was agreed that we will look extensively at the issue of restoration at the meeting on 1 July.
Mr Rennie knows that, in politics, there are often no easy answers. However, if we work together, using the new vehicle of the Scottish Mines Restoration Trust, we are far more likely to come up with solutions to a problem that is undoubtedly of concern—and rightly so—to many communities throughout Scotland.
No one is suggesting that the responsibility should be shifted from the coal operators. The coal operators have responsibility—responsible coal operators in Scotland acknowledge that fact—and the responsibility will continue. The question is how that can be made to work in practice in the future, and the matter is being looked into extremely seriously.
The minister will be aware of the recent formation of the Scottish opencast communities alliance, an organisation that brings together the communities throughout Scotland that are directly impacted on by the industry. Does he agree that all parties in this discussion should recognise that alliance and be willing to work with it to represent the people who are most directly impacted on? Will he call on the Scottish Mines Restoration Trust routinely to ensure that its minutes are placed in the public domain?
I will obviously work with all relevant stakeholders who have a contribution to make. I understand that the SMRT fully intends to work with the communities that are most affected.
As I said in my statement, community engagement is imperative and an essential part of all the work that is done on a particular coaled-out mine. It is beyond question that one should work with the local community, although quite who speaks for the local community is an issue that has exercised many people from time to time, and I suggest that the matter should be looked at on a pragmatic basis.
As Mr Harvie will know, the SMRT is, rightly, a body that is independent of the Scottish Government. Therefore, it will be for the SMRT to decide how it will engage. My understanding is that it intends to engage fully with appropriate representatives of the communities that are most affected.
I pay tribute to the work of my colleague Adam Ingram MSP, who, despite his current illness, has attended the important work of the task force on behalf of his constituents in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
I ask the minister to spell out for the Parliament the possible impact of the ORR’s proposal to recommend the new freight-specific charge of £4.04 per kgtm.
I thank Mr Coffey for that question. I have been in frequent contact with Mr Ingram, who, although still on sick leave, is working hard for his constituents in these matters, as his area is one of the most affected in Scotland.
Mr Coffey asks about the impact of the ORR’s proposals on the sector. The data available from the industry in Scotland shows that the average total freight charge to transport coal from Ayrshire to the Aire valley power stations in Yorkshire is about £8 to £10 per tonne. By comparison, the equivalent charge to transport coal from Immingham, a Lincolnshire port, to the Aire valley is £3 to £5 per tonne. The charge to transport coal from a typical English mine closer to the Aire valley may be £1.50 to £3 per tonne.
Those figures show that, before any increases, the mines and businesses in Scotland bear a material cost disadvantage ranging from between £3 and £8 per tonne delivered. Therefore, the introduction of distance-related charging on a per-kilometre-travelled basis will lead to higher than average cost increases for Scottish coal supplied to English power stations. Were the ORR’s proposals to be implemented, there is a serious risk that they would destroy the opencast coal sector in Scotland.
I was grateful, therefore, that the ORR appeared at the task force meeting on Monday, as well as at the previous meeting. I thank it for its attendance. Dr Murray was there, too. It was not a happy experience for the ORR, as strong points were made, but we had a dignified discussion. The point was put—by me, as it happens—that, if the charges were introduced, they could kill the industry in Scotland.
I am very hopeful, because there is a reasonable case based on evidence—some of which I have read out to members to show that it is serious evidence—and any regulator must and, I believe, will consider the evidence carefully in coming to a decision. One of the reasons that I felt that it was appropriate to bring the statement to the chamber today was to underscore the gravity of the predicament that the industry currently faces. I believe that I have been able to do so.
Having attended a briefing with the ORR at lunchtime, I am confident that it has been listening to what people have been saying.
I thank the minister for his statement. I did not see the advance copy as I was in the chamber when it was released, but as a member of the task force at the minister’s invitation—I thank him for that—I know that the task force is rightly concentrating on the immediate employment and restoration problems caused first by problems with ATH and now by problems with SRG.
Will the minister advise me whether part of the task force’s remit will be to investigate how we could better progress economic development in coalfield areas, such as Upper Nithsdale, to ensure that their economies are less vulnerable to any future problems in the industry?
I thank Dr Elaine Murray for her attendance at the task force and for her work on the issue as a constituency MSP over a fairly long period of not inconsiderable dialogue between us.
The purpose of the Scottish opencast coal task force is to consider issues relating to the opencast coal sector. That is quite a wide range of topics. There are, I think, nearly 50 people on the task force and, I must say, they have been pretty well behaved. That has made my chairmanship role pleasant and not challenging.
It would be wrong to extend the remit of the group to an extremely wide omnibus economic development role, especially as East Ayrshire Council has its own local task force. We really should continue to focus on the opencast coal sector.
As Mr Rennie said, we must focus on bonding and restoration. If we do that and move that issue forward—I am confident that we will do that, incidentally—we will have done a good thing for Scotland. It might impair the chances of us focusing on that important task if our remit were extended and radically changed.
However, I say to Dr Elaine Murray that I have personally asked Dr Lena Wilson to ensure that every possible attention is given to the areas that are most affected. I believe that that service will be received through Scottish Enterprise and all other relevant personnel, including SDS and the PACE team.
I absolutely accept the general point that it is imperative that we consider what other options can be explored for diversifying the economy from the coal sector.
I have to say that, if I am to have any hope of calling all the members who wish to ask questions, questions and answers will need to be slightly shorter.
I thank the minister for his statement. Will he explain in a wee bit more detail what progress is being made on the task force’s work, in particular as far as issues relating to Fife are concerned?
I am pleased that we have representatives from Fife Council involved in the task force. Alex Rowley attended the last meeting, as did Keith Winter, who is one of the senior officials. I also believe that Claire Baker attended the previous task force meeting.
The work of the task force is to consider all parts of Scotland that are affected. There are particular issues in Fife in relation to restoration. Those are being considered in great detail by the local authority, the Coal Authority, Russel Griggs, SEPA and other relevant stakeholders to determine whether we can make progress regarding the restoration of mines in Fife—in particular Muir Dean, which presents particular challenges.
Those are not easy matters. The point of a task force is to bring people together to work together in a swift and focused fashion. That is happening. I am confident that that work will deliver fruitful results.
Does the minister agree that, given the repeated warnings from the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets about the lack of electricity generation capacity and the prospect of the lights going off, Scottish coal can continue to play its part in supplying power stations across the UK, alongside other forms of energy generation such as renewables?
Mr MacKenzie is absolutely right. The regulator, Ofgem, warned last October that the spare generating capacity in the UK was considerably lower than it should be. In respect of England, I believe that the figure for spare generating capacity was around 4 per cent, which is far below a safe and prudent level. I believe that, since last October, there has been a further closure of coal-fired power stations. The figure from last October can therefore only have worsened. That is one of the most serious issues facing Scotland and the UK today.
Scotland has a spare margin of around 25 per cent of generating capacity. Our grid capacity to export our electricity to England is being quadrupled, at the agreement of the regulators, so as to allow our electricity to be exported down south to keep the lights on for our good friends in England.
Mr MacKenzie is quite right to point out that, were the threatened charges of the ORR to be implemented and were the expectations of industry to be realised—if it was not possible to continue to operate because to do so would be loss making—there would be a severe potential consequence for electricity supply in the UK at a time when the picture is, as I have painted it, pretty bleak.
The minister mentioned the closure last week of the opencast mine at Muir Dean in Fife. There are significant environmental concerns about the site. Although the bond is in place, it might not be sufficient. Although the SMRT has been established, it is not clear how it would address situations such as that at Muir Dean. While we are waiting for a solution, how will sites that are currently in limbo be maintained and secured, and how will communities be protected? We are already hearing reports of pollution concerns regarding Muir Dean.
Those are serious matters, but they are not new. The general issue of restoration has been around for a long time. What is new, however, is that we have put in place a mechanism in the form of the Scottish Mines Restoration Trust, which seeks to facilitate solutions.
The SMRT provides a focus and a purpose that hitherto did not exist. That is a good thing, and I hope that other members welcome it. It is a very good idea, when there is a complex problem involving multiple parties, to bring them together to find a solution. That is what the SMRT will do.
Moreover, it was announced at the task force meeting in Cumnock on Monday that the sum of £1.1 million has been provided to the SMRT, which will assist it in performing various functions, such as obtaining any necessary technical, consultants’ or environmental reports, obtaining information or engaging people whose advice is a sine qua non of finding successful solutions.
The SMRT’s role will not be a panacea, nor is it primarily a funding body—it is a facilitating body. I believe, however, that its existence will help us to tackle challenges such as those at Muir Dean far more readily.
The local authority, together with the stakeholders that I mentioned in my answer to Annabelle Ewing, is working extremely hard in relation to Muir Dean. I can assure the Parliament that the matter is receiving full, thorough and comprehensive attention. I cannot and will not undertake that there will be outcomes that I cannot guarantee—that would be utterly irresponsible—but I am confident that everything that can be done is being done.
I reiterate the comments praising my colleague Adam Ingram. I take this opportunity to thank Russel Griggs, my constituent, for the hard work that he has put into finding solutions to what are very complex problems.
I ask the minister to give us an update on the situation in Glenmuckloch, in particular with regard to any jobs that could be generated by the restoration of the opencast site there.
I thank Joan McAlpine for her question. She has also played a substantial role in these matters, over a long period, in relation to her constituents.
As it happens, I met John Glen of Buccleuch Estates earlier today, and we are in regular contact with him as Russel Griggs has had massive involvement in the issue of late. I am hopeful that progress can be made at Glenmuckloch, which may allow a restoration project to proceed. I think that other members are aware of the work that is being done and the good will with which all parties involved are pursuing the objective of restoration at that site. Were it to happen, it would be a fillip and give succour to all those throughout Scotland who want to see other mines being restored.
Following the announcement that Hargreaves Services has bought the rights to take over the assets of Aardvark, what details are available about the plans for Aardvark’s Fife operation and the jobs that it supports?
In respect of Fife, Hargreaves is in discussions with Fife Council about the sites concerned. It is too soon to make an announcement as discussions continue on various solutions, but I assure David Torrance that work is continuing and councils have been invited by Hargreaves to continue the dialogue on a site-by-site basis.
In view of the SMRT not directly funding restoration and given the perceived—at least—varying robustness of local authority arrangements for restoration bonds, can the minister assure the Parliament that the matter will be looked at on a Scotland-wide basis so that communities are properly protected?
Yes—I think that I can give the assurance that the member seeks. The purpose of the task force is to look at the issue strategically and comprehensively. That is why, at the next meeting of the task force on 1 July, I expect that we will receive a number of presentations from all those who have a material interest and a contribution to make. I hope that, thereafter, we will see progress being made.
What opportunities are there to focus on and develop the transferable skills of workers who are affected by the collapse of Scottish Coal?
The workers are highly skilled, and to some extent the skills can be transferred to other sectors, most obviously the construction sector.
In order to enable those workers’ skills to be recognised in other sectors, the short-life working group will be looking precisely at what certification might be required to secure that objective and to ensure that those people who wish to pursue a different career, in construction for example, are enabled to do so by having access to the necessary assessment to secure that certification. It is the access to the assessment—for example, carrying out the driving under supervision—that is important.
It is expected that many jobs, possibly hundreds, will be created in the restoration of mines. We will also explore the possibility that training and assessment can be carried out in relation to sites that are being restored in such a way that people can take part and complete some of the restoration work in the course of completing their training. That would be an imaginative way in which to seek to constrain the restoration costs, and it could therefore be part of the imaginative solutions that we are seeking to solve what is a thorny problem of, I suspect, several decades’ duration.
The minister has wrestled with the immediate problem facing the industry. I welcome the speedy action that he has taken thus far, but we have to think forward. On the basis that he has said that some moneys will be available to soften the blow in the affected communities, will he consider working with local councils by initiating research into geothermal energy opportunities—and therefore big job opportunities—for the provision of district heating networks through tapping into the warm water that runs through the disused coal mines in the affected areas?
A wide range of topics were raised there. I inform Mr Brodie that I am expecting a report—which was commissioned some time ago—to be provided to me on the potential benefits that Scotland may derive from our untapped geothermal resource. In looking at that, we will certainly consider whether that potential includes any opportunities in relation to disused mines.